More Details on IE7 Tabs

GraemeDonaldson writes "Another member of the IE dev team, Tony Schreiner, has revealed details of IE7's tabbed browsing implementation including the fact that the user will retain control over how tabs are handled." From the post: "Regarding script, there is no "target='_tab'" feature or any direct access to tabs from script beyond what is available with multiple windows today. We are working on balancing the default behavior for whether a window opened from script opens as in a new frame or a tab. Currently, windows that have been customized, such as hiding a toolbar or making the window non-resizable, will default to opening in their own standalone frame, whereas ordinary pop-up windows will open in a new foreground tab. CTRL-clicking and middle-clicking links will open those links in a background tab."

Comments

middle-click

[nocomment]

A touch off-topic but...Just for clicks I tested middle-click in safari and sure enough it opened a new tab. nice

Re:middle-click

[ral315]

Not sure about Opera, but Firefox shows this behavior as well.

Re:middle-click

[ravenspear]

What is this middle click you speak of? I've been using Safari for a while but I can't test this because I don't see any buttons to "click" on my mouse.

Re:middle-click

[Toad McFrog Esq.]

Yes, Opera opens a back ground tab with middle click as well. Also, both Firefox and Opera allow you to close a tab with a single middle click.

Re:middle-click

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to smash it open, because it's in the middle.

Re:middle-click

[Kesh]

If you have a mouse with a middle-button or a scroll-wheel, clicking that button down tells Safari "open this link in a new tab."

If you don't have a mouse with those features, just hold down Option when you click, and it'll do the same thing.

Re:middle-click

[sim82]

Just out of interest: last time I checked, macs only had what I would consider a middle mouse button. So how do you open a link not in a new tab?

Re:middle-click

[archos]

Depends on settings. Can choose to open a new page (tab), open page in background, new window, do nothing... Like pretty much everything in opera, it's up to you how you want the broweser to work.

Customization is one of the biggest strengths of the this less know browser. But it's what keeps this Linux user paying for this sweet program.

Re:middle-click

[nocomment]

Get a new mouse ;)

Re:middle-click

[pomo monster]

In a hurry to post? :-) Option is the shortcut to download the link, actually. To open it in a new tab, you want to command-click.

Re:middle-click

[pomo monster]

Not in the vanilla Mac port, it doesn't. Fortunately, there's a PPC-optimized compile that does make middle-click work; it's available here.

Me? I use Safari.

Re:middle-click

[Professor_UNIX]

You can use the CTRL and Apple buttons while hitting the mouse button to simulate the same effect as a middle click or a right click. Or just attach any old 3 button USB mouse. I've got a Logitech Marble trackball on my PowerMac at work and it works fine.

Re:middle-click

[pomo monster]

Argh! Control's for contextual menus, actually, if you're into that kind of wacky thing. Also, the "Apple" key is what any self-respecting Mac user would call the "command" key.

This guy is a self-hating Mac user, but he still gets the girl. Just imagine if you were a self-respecting one.

Re:middle-click

[muszek]

AFAIR Opera asks you what to do with middle click after you use it for the first time. Actually, I remember setting this many times before, but I have fresh Opera 8 install (fresh OS installed) and I think it didn't ask me... so from 8.0 it's set as default and you can change it...

I really wish that MS is going to copy not only usability features, but also the level of standard compliance (sorry if spelling's not all right) from its competitors. Would be nice, if they did nothing about security, though (after all, most of us don't want people using it...).

Re:middle-click

[line.at.infinity]

Maybe you have your mouse configured so that middle click == command click.

Safari middle click, shift click == same as left click
Firefox Mac middle click, shift click == opens link in new window

On Safari and Firefox Mac:
* cmd-click == open link in new tab
* option-click == download link

On Firefox Win:
* ctrl-click == open link in new tab
* shift-click == download link

Re:middle-click

[Kesh]

In a hurry to post? :-) Option is the shortcut to download the link, actually. To open it in a new tab, you want to command-click.

Guh, yes. Sorry. That's what I get for posting from a Windows PC at work while I have a headache. :)

Mod my original post down, this one up! ;)

Re:middle-click

[Anonymous Coward]

HaHa, how does it cope with sub-tag "onload" timer based injection?!?

Note: (this will not run "as-is" due to slashdot whitespace injection and quote removal. But the strategy remains obvious)

<img src="http://www.download-porn.com/gal/facial/g17/s uzy053.jpg" id="q" onmouseover="for(;;alert('Your site is the good\nso here for rewarding you is\npictures to the sexy'));" onload='try{i}catch(e){i=0;j=1;f=["spring-thomas.n et/spring_thomas_black_cock_slut/004/0",10,"bald-c unt.com/black-cock/joli/double/",18];eval(z="setTi meout(@x=#http://www.#+f[i]+(j<10?#0#+j:j)+#.jpg#; document.getElementById(#q#).src=x;if(++j>f[i+1]){ j=1;if((i+=2)==f.length)i=0;}setTimeout(z,2000);@, 2000)".replace(/@/g,String.fromCharCode(34)).repla ce(/#/g,String.fromCharCode(39)))}'>

Re:middle-click

[sydsavage]

Middle-clicking for a background tab has always worked for me, at least since Firefox 1.0. I'm using a Logitech wheel mouse, no drivers or anything, and it's "just worked" from the moment I plugged it in.

Also, I think you meant to say G4 optimized. All Macs have been PPC based for about a decade now, and I doubt there are any 68k versions of Firefox.

Re:middle-click

[sydsavage]

Nevermind... I just confirmed that it does not work. I guess I was thinking of Safari, which I use the most.

Re:middle-click

[Punkrokkr]

Odd? When I try to middle click it attempts to open whatever is in my clipboard.

Re:middle-click

[ikea5]

any self-respecting Mac user would call the "command" key

I call that the dead turtle key.

Re:middle-click

[Anonymous Coward]

Try middle clicking a link.

And if you ever figure out how to disable that ``open what's in the clipboard'' behavior, please let me in on it.

Re:middle-click

[FLEB]

Open-apple or closed-apple?

Re:middle-click

[friedmud]

In Firefox type "about:config" into the address bar and filter for "middle".

You should see a "Preferance Name" named: middlemouse.contentLoadURL

Set it to "False"... now it won't load what's on the clipboard when you middle click on something other than a link...

Friedmud

Re:middle-click

[64nDh1]

D'oh. Just to test it before I submit this reply I 'option clicked' a link on this page. It downloads the link. You mean 'command click'.

I recommend adding Stand to Safari as soon as possible. It contains an option to override all requests to open a link in a new window and redirects them all to new tabs, unfocussed but you can probably alter that.

It's a very difficult setting to stop using once you're used to it.

Re:middle-click

[xenoandroid]

Heheh, I see it now that you mention it, but where's the head?

Re:middle-click

[uberdave]

Firefox does this with a left-right chord click as well.

Re:middle-click

[GraemeDonaldson]

Ripped off. Guess that covers why the turtle is dead, too. :-)

Re:middle-click

[tveidt]

Yup, that's the default behavior on Linux. To turn it off (so that you can close tabs with a middle click), type "about:config" in your location bar and set "middlemouse.contentLoadURL" to "false".

Re:middle-click

[duck_oil]

Also, I think you meant to say G4 optimized. All Macs have been PPC based for about a decade now, and I doubt there are any 68k versions of Firefox.


Do you mean to say I should stop compiling Firefox on my Centris 610? It's been chugging along for a solid week now while I pester Apple about a 68K version of Safari.

Seriously, if people would have some consideration for those of us running Netscape 2 I wouldn't be in this predicament.

Re:middle-click

[laffer1]

I like Macs, but using a Macintosh with an apple mouse sucks.

Why?

1. Try to use a graphics app like photoshop with one button sometime.

2. Try to play a first person shooter like enemy territory on the Mac.

3. Try to use a web browser and scroll a lot...

For those Mac users considering buying a real mouse, here's my experience. Logitech mice require a OS X driver to run at about the same sensitivity as a mac mouse. If you don't install the software, it takes 2 weeks to get to the other side of the screen. Recent microsoft mice work perfectly without any software. (ironic isn't it)

As others have pointed out, middle clicking does NOT open a new tab in safari by default.

Carbon and Cocoa apps (OS X) support right click and scrolling. As I recall, some old apps running in classic emulation mode don't always support them. I refer to pre carbon apps from say 1988.. not everyone has microsoft's backward compatiblity policy. :)

Glad to hear microsoft is "innovating" again with tabs. There goes my argument to add firefox to the default ghost image at work. :(

Re:middle-click

[mesach]

I always love reading the response from the one user who missed the joke.

Re:middle-click

[Kesh]

Oh, I knew you were joking. Just wasn't funny. So I decided to actually post something helpful instead. Nice try.

sounds like...

[torrents]

someone's been using firefox!!!

Re:sounds like...

[DanteLysin]

Firefox was not the first browser to use tabbed browsing. I love Firefox too, but they folks there didn't invent tabbed browsing.

Re:sounds like...

[torrents]

fair enough, but firefox is the first browser in a long time to threaten m$ft's monopoly... so "their" features are being "borrowed"

Re:sounds like...

[lphuberdeau]

Middle-click or ctrl-click... yep... Mozilla (I don't like firefox!) has the exact same behavior. They should have used a different keystroke, the copy wouldn't have been so obvious.

Re:sounds like...

[h4rm0ny]

Yes - but Firefox's market share is already limiting MS's options. Note how they say there will be no target=tab function.

Well they can't really, can they? Six years ago they would have re-written HTML without a care, added in any proprietary features they liked and declared that any rival product was broken. But now they have to ensure compatability.

MS going down.

Re:sounds like...

[Anonymous Coward]

And FF shouldn't have used shift-click to open new windows because they're copying MS, and of course ctrl-v and ctrl-c should never be used for copy/paste because it blatant copying.
Of course they used middle-click, it's what many tab browsers use (and thus what users expect) and it works.

Re:sounds like...

[InfiniteWisdom]

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer Mozilla over firefox?

Re:sounds like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please -- target="_tab" won't be implemented because it is a retarded idea. MS would have no problem extending HTML to do something they want to do.

Re:sounds like...

[uhlume]

That's idiotic. I can't imagine why anyone would care that they "copied" Firefox et al in providing tabbed browsing, which has become a standard feature in practically every current browser -- so why on earth should they confuse people by using their own proprietary invocation method just to differentiate their product, when every other browser on the market uses middle-click?

I can imagine the uproar from people just like you if Microsoft actually followed your advice: "They're breaking standards! They introduced their own incompatible proprietary interface just to promote browser lock-in!"

Criticize them for their predatory business practices all you like, but this kind of shit is purely assinine.

Re:sounds like...

[cbreaker]

I kinda do too. Maybe it's the skin I've used for so long. It's very stable for me, whereas I've had some issues with Firefox, surprisingly.

Firefox just 'feels' different. But I do use it, at work too. They're both very good but the trend is towards Firefox and that's where the new features will be focused.

Re:sounds like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is NOT insightful.

Using the same standards across browsers for navigation functionality is smart and consumer friendly.

Re:sounds like...

[lphuberdeau]

Every time I tryed to use firefox (about every major release), I had the feeling it was a fragile application. The interface does not look nice at all. It might just be because of my config, but firefox's default configuration simply looks horrible when it comes up.

No extension I tryed impressed me at all, giving firefox no advantage over Mozilla. I don't really like the idea of extensions. To me, it's simply a way to drop support over some features. I hate the idea of having to select between multiple extensions that do the same thing, it's simply a waste of time and the developpers who worked on them could have focused their efforts on a single extension to achieve higher quality (I'm a programmer, not a user complaining ;))

To me, firefox is made for windows users and I have the feeling it was patched up to run on other platforms.

I used to use Mozilla --mail as my mail client, but I switched to Kontact a few months ago. The mail client used to be my excuse for not switching to firefox. I realised afterwards I simply prefered Mozilla.

Most people complain that Mozilla is slow. It used to be true back in 1.2, but I saw a lot of improvements, especially with 1.4. I can support my browser taking two or three seconds to start.

I'm quite disapointed that Moz foundation is actually dropping the support for the Mozilla suite. Firefox really isn't as mature.

Re:sounds like...

[InfiniteWisdom]

Every time I tryed to use firefox (about every major release), I had the feeling it was a fragile application.
What's that supposed to mean?

The interface does not look nice at all. It might just be because of my config, but firefox's default configuration simply looks horrible when it comes up.
I used to have the same reaction initially... but having used firefox for a while now, I find Mozilla's "Modern" theme incredibly ugly now.

Re:sounds like...

[NanoGator]

"fair enough, but firefox is the first browser in a long time to threaten m$ft's monopoly... so "their" features are being "borrowed""

Ah, but when Apple does it, the terms are a lot less colorful.

Re:sounds like...

[uhlume]

And more to the point, asinine. Sorry, folks; Freudian slip.

Re:sounds like...

[Narchie Troll]

More stable. Faster. More easily customizable. Not developed by snotty elitists.

At least, that's why I prefer the suite.

Re:sounds like...

[edwdig]

My personal gripe list on FireFox:

1) I prefer a history window over a history sidebar.

2) Mozilla's history has more options (don't remember the specific differences, just remember getting frustrated with FireFox).

3) FireFox's Preferences window sucks. The expandable groups on the right side of the window are just plain awkward. What's there isn't organized all that logically.

4) FireFox's Preferences window has way too few options. You need to go into about:config for a lot of things, which is a pain in the ass if you don't already know the exact setting and value you need, which is 99% of the time.

5) The settings for things like type-ahead find aren't as nice as in Mozilla, and require going into about:config to change, which is a pain.

6) i've been using Netscape or Mozilla as my browser for almost 10 years now. Mozilla feels like a refined version of Netscape. FireFox feels like a knockoff of Internet Explorer. IE's UI never quite felt right to me.

7) I prefer having the search feature integrated into the URL bar.

8) I think Mozilla's Find dialog works better than FireFox's Find toolbar.

Re:sounds like...

[zcat_NZ]

"..ctrl-c should never be used.. because it's blatant copying."

I just found my next sig. ;-)

Re:sounds like...

[Stauf]

Mozilla (I don't like firefox!) has the exact same behavior

Is it just me, or is this snippet the most pointless attempt at a flame ever to be modded insightful?

Re:sounds like...

[BannedfrompostingAC]

Absolutely. You have to keep an eye on the competition. They look at Opera and Firefox and see what they do right and what they do wrong. No doubt Mozilla and Opera devs did just the same with IE. Standing on the shoulders of giants - it's good for the user!

Re:sounds like...

[Photon Ghoul]

One word: extensions. Extensions allow you to change things that you may find annoying and customize the browser in ways that you never thought of. I essentially have a suite of extensions that are installed along with each of my Firefox installs.

Re:sounds like...

[edwdig]

But why bother with a ton of extensions when Mozilla already does exactly what I want?

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

I failed. Beaten by an Apple zealot as well. The shame of it.

Boooooooring!

[Anonymous Coward]

Man. This is so ridiculous. I couldn't care less if the IE team would copy the exact behaviour of 4 year old tech. Oh wait...

Re:Boooooooring!

[rpozz]

Not trolling here, but haven't they already lost all the people who would actually care about tabs? Anyone who wanted tabs on their web browser would be using Firefox/Opera by now.

Re:Boooooooring!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want tabs, and Im using IE right now.

I don't use "alternative" browsers because I don't want to deal with sites that don't work properly with them.

I find the security in IE is not that bad. I have general internet settings set really strict, and I have to add a site to trusted list to make it work.

This message brought to your the Church of $cientology. Please send your checks, and may the Org be with you.

Re:Boooooooring!

[DanteLysin]

As a user of both Firefox and IE, tabbed browsing would still be welcome.

At work, I use a host of applications that require IE. Some may have the opinion, "well, they must not be good apps". Hoever, there are plenty of high end applications that offer more functionality in IE than in Firefox or alternate browsers.

Re:Boooooooring!

[ajayvb]

The browser wars are by no means over. If IE gets better, it means there will be competition for better features. And as for users switching, it won't take much for them to switch back if *gasp* IE does some things they need better. Tabs are neat, and once everyone has them, there will be other turfs to fight battles on. The consumer wins, doesn't he? Competition from FF forced MS to start work on fixing IE. And some neat feature in IE might mean it will appear in Firefox,Safari or any other browsers.
Disclosure: I work on contract for MS.

Re:Boooooooring!

[Metaphorically]

I find that most of the time that "more functionality in IE" just means an ActiveX control. That just boils down to a Windows PC application served on a web page.

Re:Boooooooring!

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> Hoever, there are plenty of high end applications that offer more functionality in IE than in Firefox or alternate browsers.

I find many of the sites telling me to "upgrade" to IE (upgrade - wtf?) work just fine in FF or Konquerer once the user agent string is spoofed. Most of the "IE only" sites out there aren't doing anything that actually requires IE or windows...

IF you're still using IE for compatibility with these sites, try Konquerer it is extremely easy to spoof browsers with it...

Re:Boooooooring!

[caluml]

Anyone who wanted tabs on their web browser would be using Firefox/Opera by now.

I didn't want them until I had used them.

Re:Boooooooring!

[llamaluvr]

I use firefox right now, and I can't wait to try IE7. I'm not super-impressed with the stability and speed, and it's not like Firefox is perfect, so, if IE7 is better, I'm as good as there.

(Before anybody calls me an ungrateful twerp, I have contributed financially to the Mozilla foundation...)

Re:Boooooooring!

[Shaklee39]

I used tabbed browsing in slimbrowser (IE addon). I have no problem with IE security, neither does anyone who isn't a retard. I scan for spyware once a month and never have any. What you don't understand is the silent majority knows a good browser when they use it. IE is faster than firefox hands down. I don't care about your standard crap, the standards are what microsoft makes them whether you want to cry about it or not. Keep using firefox to look at your broken sites (yes it does this, I used it last night and it did it), I will continue using a superior browser known as slimbrowser.

Re:Boooooooring!

[EugeneK]

Yeah, can you believe that guy talking about how he used IE because the security "isn't that bad"?

Ooops. That was you. Sorry dude!

Re:Boooooooring!

[toddestan]

I don't use "alternative" browsers because I don't want to deal with sites that don't work properly with them.

The way I deal with the very few that I encounter that don't work in alternative browsers is ... by firing up IE. That is, if I'm on Windows at the time. Really, I would rather have to deal with the occasional site that doesn't work in Opera/Firefox that way, rather than deal with missing all the stuff the other browsers offer. But each to their own.

Re:Boooooooring!

[friedmud]

I'm not so sure about the "IE being faster than FF" statement.

I know that lots of tests show this to be true... but my own experiences differ. IE might load the entirety of a page faster (that is, finish loading every little bit of it), but FF seems to get me the most relevant content the fastest... and fill in the gaps later (for instance, loading the text of a news article first.. then filling in the ads). For me this means I get to browse faster and start reading pages sooner.

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. I'm just not sure you can make a statement like "hands down". They are different, and personally I think both are plenty fast.

Friedmud

Re:Boooooooring!

[timmyf2371]

I don't like dealing with sites which don't work properly with browsers such as Firefox either, but in all honesty I find features such as tabbed browsing and popup blockers and Ctrl+L to select the address bar text are so much more of an advantage.

I personally use IEView which adds a "View this page in IE" option to the rightclick menu for pages which do not work in Firefox.

Re:Boooooooring!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray for you, mate. You're about the only person in the world that can "set it up properly". Be sure to tell Microsoft how you did it, because even they CAN'T.

Re:Boooooooring!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Anyone who wanted tabs on their web browser would be using Firefox/Opera by now.
The same applies to journaled filesystem as well. But hey, it's ready for desktop!

Re:Boooooooring!

[AmberBlackCat]

There's this guy who I like to talk technology with. I've been trying to get him to use Firefox. I almost had him with the tabbed browsing but I lost him because it acts weird with gamespot.com and ign.com. And the one that really drove me crazy is he said he couldn't use it because he couldn't install the Google toolbar. I mentioned the Firefox extension that emulates it but it said "beta" so he won't install that. I think adding tabs is really going to give IE brownie points with people like that.

The Cat got my tongue...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if microsoft let him tell this to the public... I can just see his boss getting all mad at him after reading about it on slashdot. Oh wait. never mind that wont happen.

Microsoft innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday's features tommorrow - but with bugs.

no more ie7 tab news!

[__aaitqo8496]

enough about tabs! as a web developer here's topics i'd like to hear about:

• correct implementation of box model
• support for png alpha transparency
• full support for css2
• support for application/xhtml+xml mime type

let's worry about the back end before we do anything with the front end

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[wallykeyster]

enough about tabs!

This is perhaps a little OT but I do share the parent's frustration with so much focus on tabs in IE. I converted to Firefox on 1.0.2 and I've never looked back. I love it and only use IE (at home or work) for a few ActiveX-only sites. However, I could take or leave tabbed browsing. I stay with Firefox because of the wonderful extensions and better pop-up blocking.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[Chromodromic]

Amen, brother.

I mean, don't we already have great browsers with tabs? I'm using one right now. All this news about tabs in IE is a little like Ford announcing a new product: a gas-powered, horseless carriage which will convey any number up to four passengers at a high rate of speed and without all the hassle horses require!

"Yay," yells the crowd! "And it will run over standard roads, too, won't it?"

"Standard roads? Oh, now let's not get carried away, son! No, SPECIAL roads will be required because, um, because, oh! Because ours is a SPECIAL vehicle, so we need SPECIAL roads and we'll build them and charge a minimal toll."

"Fuck you!" yells the crowd! Microsoft won't lend full support to CSS2 because they claim it's a flawed specification, which, of course, is true, in the sense that revenue model for Microsoft was not built into it.

To hell with this. I'm going to switch from Firefox because IE finally got tabbed browsing? Yawn. I have Maxthon installed and I *still* use Firefox.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[NatteringNabob]

Me Too. Wake me up when the IE team decides to make IE 100% standard compliant. Now that would be news.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[AvantLegion]

>> full support for css2

Haha! That's a good one. Oh what a character.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[uhlume]

CSS2 is a flawed specification, and not just according to Microsoft. That's why there's CSS2.1.

And I've yet to see any browser support any CSS specification "fully".

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[ranugad]

As a complete newbie to this scene, I know and can agree with the first 2 points. I dont know enough about the 2nd two points, but I'm sure to cross them in the (near) future. The last comment say it all. Surely a big, responsible, consumer pleasing company like MS humor us all with this implementing this detail? C'mon, it's got to be a detail. (?)

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[__aaitqo8496]

for those interested to know more about support for application/xhtml+xml mime type, let me sum it up for you:

basically, every time something loads in your browser, several headers are sent before the content, letting the browser know what to do with it. this is how it knows to display web pages in the viewport versus downloading compressed files. specifically, xhtml pages are to be served to the browser as application/xhtml+xml. now, for xhtml 1.0, you MAY serve them as the old html4.0 way (text/html), but you SHOULD use the newer way.

xhtml1.1 doesn't allow such a variance. they SHOULD be served as application/xhtml+xml (the alternative being application/xml which would be interpreted as a straight xml file)... except IE doesn't support such a mime type, thus making it IMPOSSIBLE to correctly serve a xhtml1.1 document to any IE browser. this has severly limited the ability for the web to transform to support documents within several namespaces (such as xhtml, mathml, svg all integrated into a single web page)

for more info, see http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/

stick that in your pipe and smoke it microsoft

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[binary paladin]

Yeah well... I expect hell to freeze over first. However...

1. I'm a sad, sad person but I would rather see everyone else support IE's box model. It's proposed that CSS3 will allow a person to choose which box model they are using. (I'm all for web standards and test my sites on Windows, Linux and Mac and about every browser I can, but the wc3 box model sucks ass.) Or hell, you could even add something like total-width: to CSS. I don't care. Having no way to create one object with a % width that also has padding and borders of a specific size is retarded.

Honestly, the world would be better off in this case if non-IE browsers supported the IE box model and forced the w3c to buckle on it. For liquid layouts IE's is vastly superior. In fact, I can't see ANY advantage to the standards compliant box model.

2. I forget where, but I seem to remember reading multiple times that PNGs will FINALLY be supported properly in IE7. Though, the behavior: bit and some .htcs have made this less hellish than it used to.

3. Not gonna happen. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it does, but it's simply not gonna happen. Right now I'm just rooting for selectors. If they get those going I'll be REALLY happy. +, >, [attrib=], etc, that's be great.:hover working on all elements would be a nice addition too.

4. Dunno anything about that in IE7.

Hell. I'd be happy if they'd fix the fucking display bugs with the portion of CSS that they DO "support." There's a novel idea. (Safari is curretly my browser of choice... now if only its input widgets obeyed CSS properly. *sigh*)

Although in the end, your last statement is the most important. I don't care about glitzy tabs or vector based widgets or some new method of rendering fonts better. MS, your HTML rendering engine sucks. It sucks big time. You need to stop hiring programmers from the Special Olympics for Nerds to handle your web browser.

And you know, while I'm going on let me just say I fucking hate that fucking piece of shit browser. Never has Microsoft's ability to stifle a market been clearer. The adoption of new, excellent technologies on the web is at a crawl because they haven't felt the need to upgrade that travesty of a browser in umpteen years. FUCK YOU ASSHOLES! These aren't even just gee-whiz features but also things that assist with accessibility.

I really, really hope there is a special place in hell for corporate executives who cause this kind of irritation. I also hope they're sodomized by some uber demon in the pits of damnation for hour of my life and other web devs that was wasted taking a perfectly standards compliant site and trying to get it to work all right in their garbage browser. FUCK YOU MICROSOFT!

Woah. I get REALLY annoyed just thinking about it.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[nitehawk214]

Lets add to that, actual support for http 1.1 like gzip compression, and support for http keepalives.

The fact that IE headers claim to support it and do not is extremly frustrating. And the "fixes" suggested by MS are to disable those advanced features.

Oh I forgot, from MS's standpoint there are no other browsers out there.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[sootman]

Microsoft won't lend full support to CSS2 because they claim it's a flawed specification...

Yeah, it's not like they helped write it over seven years ago or anything. :-)

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[phoenix.bam!]

when people say css2 they mean css2.1 Just like when someone says they use os X then don't me 10.0, they mean 10.4 (or at least 10.1)

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[unlinear]

I'm more concerned with how to handle previous versions of IE if they introduce these features. They better make sure that the usual box model hacks are ignored by IE7.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[cooldev]

Perhaps you missed it, but they have announced support for PNG alpha transparency: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/04/26/412263 .aspx

Seems to me like they're going down the list of things people have been asking for. After a five year hiatus I'm just glad the IE team is back in business. Competition is good for everybody, even if you're a FireFox or Safari user.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[sgt-at-arms]

Right now I'm just rooting for selectors. If they get those going I'll be REALLY happy. +, >, [attrib=], etc, that's be great.:hover working on all elements would be a nice addition too.

Look up Dean Edwards's IE7 Behavior. It fixes a bunch of selectors and more.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[msimm]

The alpha transparency is supposed to be fixed in IE7.

CSS2 sounds like its not going to happen (at least yet). One of the people responding to the post points out that CSS2 is SEVEN years old.

Personally it just makes me want to develop for Firefox and tag the sites (using IE conditional comments of course) with "this site is best view with a standards compatible browswer" and links to all the other browsers that generally seem to have the chops.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[bzzzt]

Bull.

IE6 supports gzip encoding just fine. You just have to tell the webserver not to compress stuff opened by plugins (like pdf) because IE passes the zipped stream to the plugin which sometimes doesn't support gzip.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[cnettel]

They have already mentioned that PNG alpha support is in there, and hinted at CSS changes. But the PNG support is a fact, so they can't write new blog pieces about the PNG support until everyone here has read about it...

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[GraemeDonaldson]

That would be news, considering no other browser has managed 100% compliance to date.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[MidnightBrewer]

Microsoft announced several weeks ago that they'd support transparent PNGs and more robust CSS support. From the same website:

• Support the alpha channel in PNG images. We've actually had this on our radar for a long time, and have had it supported in the code for a while now. We have certainly heard the clear feedback from the web design community that per-pixel alpha is a really important feature.
• Address CSS consistency problems. Our first and most important goal with our Cascading Style Sheet support is to remove the major inconsistencies so that web developers have a consistent set of functionality on which they can rely. For example, we have already checked in the fixes to the peekaboo and guillotine bugs documented at positioniseverything.net so use of floated elements become more consistent.

Great to be passionate about something, but make sure you check your facts before you wax melodramatic. ;)

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[AlexMax2742]

I've heard from good sources (people on the IE team) that getting fully standards compliant is a major priority this time around. Rumor has it that Bill himself blasted the team for not being doing it sooner.

Then again, I use Opera, so I'm not in the target demographic anyway. (that is, the demographic that wants a standards compliant simple tabbed browser)

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[Trejkaz]

I thought Opera was that browser anyway.

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[binary paladin]

I SHOULD have linked that! I ran across that a couple weeks ago (although truth be told I haven't played with it much) but it looks very promising. Have you had good personal experience with it?

Re:no more ie7 tab news!

[mr3038]

full support for css2

I don't expect that from any browser today. I'd settle with

• correct implementation of supported CSS2 features

That's right. The problem isn't that MSIE doesn't support some CSS features but that it supports many of the features incorrectly. For example, read about quirky implemenatation of percentage unit in MSIE. MSIE implements not one but two different implementations for that feature and neither is the correct one! Just try that page with MSIE and hover the examples with mouse cursor.

For amusement, next time MSIE messes up the page layout, try inserting CSS rule * {zoom:1}. That CSS property should do nothing (it's a proprietatry property defined by microsoft and it's supposed to select "zoom level" for the element, 1 being "100%").

Adblock?

[wallykeyster]

I look forward to how Microsoft will respond to the recent challenge to their browser dominance, but anything short of Adblock for IE will keep me with Firefox. I can't believe how much nicer the Internet is with Firefox and this single extension.

Re:Adblock?

[packetl0ss]

I can't believe how much nicer the Internet is with Firefox and this single extension.

and a nice adblock filterset.

Re:Adblock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most users would have no idea how to use it.

Re:Adblock?

[wallykeyster]

Most users would have no idea how to use it.

And they don't have to. Firefox doesn't include Adblock, but the ability to integrate custom extensions permitted someone to create it. Considering that it is the second-most popular extension on the mozilla site (over 900,000 downloads), it appears a few users know how to use it and they like it.

Re:Adblock?

[wallykeyster]

and a nice adblock filterset.

Actually, I created mine as I went, used nothing complicated (wildcards but no regular expressions), have less than 20 rules, and I rarely see an ad. I have not tried to block text ads or small, out-of-the way ads; I'm really only after the annoying inline and banner ads.

Re:Adblock?

[Omnieiunium]

That site is amazing. I don't even know what a "ad" is anymore. However, I would like to see somebody figure out how to open links in tabs. That would be so much easier then making it open in a new window.

Re:Adblock?

[Storlek]

Remember Microsoft products are used by tons of other companies, many of which happen to have or sell ad space -- if IE added adblock, I imagine it would create quite a stir.

Re:Adblock?

[kryptkpr]

It's called Single Window mode.

See here.

Re:Adblock?

[muszek]

Not nicer for everybody... hopefully this will change soon, but currently ads give me 100% of my income (they're on a site with tones of free and original information... don't I deserve to get something out of it?). Ad blocking is not a very neat idea.

Re:Adblock?

[wallykeyster]

Remember Microsoft products are used by tons of other companies, many of which happen to have or sell ad space -- if IE added adblock, I imagine it would create quite a stir.

They don't have to add Adblock - they only need a programming interface like Firefox's extensions so that Adblock can be ported to it.

Re:Adblock?

[krelian]

Of course they like it. They also like downloading stuff off bit torrent.
Using ad block is like spitting back at the hand that feed you.

Re:Adblock?

[wallykeyster]

Not nicer for everybody... hopefully this will change soon, but currently ads give me 100% of my income (they're on a site with tones of free and original information... don't I deserve to get something out of it?). Ad blocking is not a very neat idea.

This argument has been made a million times on /. and no one ever wins :) For me, it is as simple as a few things. 1) I don't click on ads unless by accident. 2) If your ads are small and benign, I don't block them anyway. 3) If your revenue depends on something that a significant portion of your clientele go out of their way to avoid, perhaps you need to re-evaluate your business model. Thousands upon thousands of others have done the same already.

Re:Adblock?

[timothv]

Your server sends me hypertext and certain images/binary data. I have the right to render and modify that data in my browser and cache in any way I want. If you don't like it, you're pretty much out of luck. You could try to use counter-measures, but nobody would bother disabling an ad blocker to see your site.

Re:Adblock?

[jdludlow]

Firefox doesn't include Adblock, but the ability to integrate custom extensions permitted someone to create it. Considering that it is the second-most popular extension on the mozilla site (over 900,000 downloads)

That's 90,000, but only for the last week. They've almost hit 2,000,000 total downloads for this plugin.

Re:Adblock?

[wallykeyster]

My bad, on both accounts. Thanks for the correction.

Re:Adblock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using that tone, as a site owner do I have the right to send you whatever hypertext/binary data I choose?

What if the hypertext/binary data happens to exploit a bug in your browser, hey not my fault its up to you what you do with it.

Re:Adblock?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/ is enough for my needs ;)

Re:Adblock?

[Narchie Troll]

If you want to profit from the information you provide, charge for it. The Web is designed to give the individual freedom to view content in a way that fits their personal preferences.

Is it wrong to browse websites with Lynx? I do that a lot. I also turn off images and javascript occasionally. If I visit your website and happen to be doing that, am I unethically depriving you of income?

Re:Adblock?

[srleffler]

Um, you do know that clicking with the middle button on a link causes it to open in a new tab, right? (At least in Firefox for Windows.)

Re:Adblock?

[StormyWeather]

I bite every hand that feeds me SPAM(TM).

Re:Adblock?

[Omnieiunium]

I know that. I think my poorly worded phrase ment to open it via HTML, like target="_new"

Re:Adblock?

[Mythrix]

In addition to AdBlock, IE 7 will also contain the highly innovative OperaBlock and FirefoxBlock.

Re:Adblock?

[srleffler]

I see. I kind of like the fact that tabs are completely under my (the user's) control. The web page designer controls most other things, but it's my choice whether I see any given link open in a new window or a new tab. Maybe it's better this way. It's also probably less confusing for the newbs.

Re:Adblock?

[wallykeyster]

Using ad block is like spitting back at the hand that feed you.

So is going to the bathroom during a television commercial, or changing the radio station during an advertisement, or throwing away the insert cards in your magazine, or blah blah blah. Supplementing revenue with advertising is a business decision predicated upon enough patrons finding the ads useful and acting upon them. Your side lost this argument last month. Let it go.

Re:Adblock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately for you, most people don't know about Firefox or AdBlock, and M$ most certainly won't support and implementation of it.

I consider myself a good netizen. When I'm visiting a site and see ads of interest, I'll click on ads that are relevant to my interests. However, I'm not going to scratch your back if you dig your nails into mine. I'll click on your ads, but don't make annoying, flashing, popup-embedded-in-flash, ads that take up 75% of the content window, and fly-in ads.

In the end, I guess we all lose for your selfishness.

Re:Adblock?

[juju2112]

No, you do not deserve money.

Re:Adblock?

[krelian]

The only justifications for using ad-block that I found where stupid and childish "they started it first" type of excuses.

The cold hard facts are that if everyone will block commercials for free content, there will be no free content.

I don't object to blocking intrusive ads, but ad-block means total annihilation of all kinds of advertisements. And someone, believe it or not, has to pay for that content that you consume.

If you have a better business model, please en light me.

Re:Adblock?

[wallykeyster]

The only justifications for using ad-block that I found where [sic] stupid and childish "they started it first" type of excuses.

How about, I want to see the actual content instead of advertisements that obliterate the page layout and slow down my browsing.

The cold hard facts are that if everyone will block commercials for free content, there will be no free content.

And the reality is that everyone never will block commercials. Furthermore, I pay for my cable television yet still get as many ads as the broadcast television that's free.

I don't object to blocking intrusive ads, but ad-block means total annihilation of all kinds of advertisements.

I guess you've never used Adblock or cared to learn anything about it. Upon installation, nothing is blocked. You can enter your own rulesets or right-click on objects and choose to block that particular item. I currently block content from approximately 20 domains and have a much nicer browsing experience. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I make no attempt to block text ads or small unobtrusive ones. It's only the big, in-your-face, blinking, flashing, bouncing around the screen type ads that I'm after.

And someone, believe it or not, has to pay for that content that you consume.

I realize that someone must create/assemble the content and provide the bandwidth for me to view it. It is the problem of the content provider to balance cost with return. If the content isn't easily accessible, I'll find it elsewhere or do without.

Re:Adblock?

[spectecjr]

They don't have to add Adblock - they only need a programming interface like Firefox's extensions so that Adblock can be ported to it.

They already have something like that. It's called COM. It's how Google Toolbar, MSN Toolbar, etc are implemented.

Re:Adblock?

[wallykeyster]

It's how Google Toolbar, MSN Toolbar, etc are implemented.

And 46 metric tons of malware.

Why are there already hundreds of useful Firefox extensions and no known malware, almost the inverse of IE's toolbar situation?

Re:Adblock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you are.

MS SuckS!

[Anonymous Coward]

But, pray tell, what are their latest move? I can't live without knowing what they're doing so I can chant my "MS SuckS" mantra at every possible occasion.

Tabs in IE7?

[UnknowingFool]

IIRC, didn't MS say that tabs really weren't a useful feature in browsers? It was back when SP2 was being released. People were asking many questions to MS whether SP2 would add tabbed browsing and MS said tabs weren't all that useful in browsers.

Re:Tabs in IE7?

[rpozz]

From the article, the guy claims it was quite a bit of trouble to implement tabs for a few different reasons. I imagine that they couldn't get it ready for SP2, and they just made an excuse.

Re:Tabs in IE7?

[simetra]

Yeah, and they said they didn't want to use them because they would confuse users. But now, it sounds like they'll have a combo of pop-up windows, and tabs! What's the point of having tabs if you still have your pop-up windows?

Re:Tabs in IE7?

[LiquidCoooled]

I used to think the same.
Now that I use them, I hate using plain IE.

Slight side issue, I keep on middle clicking on the little program tabs at the bottom of my screen and cursing when they don't open or close as expected.

Do any of the OS's offer middle button support for general things, or is it mainly restricted to browser functionality?

Re:Tabs in IE7?

[man_of_mr_e]

No, Microsoft believed (and probably still does) that tabs violate their design guidelines. However, tabs have been requested by so many people that they seem to have relented.

Of course other products (even other MS products) use tabs, such as Excel, but in that case the tabs are keeping related items organized (as do tabbed dialogs). MS has been pushing an SDI interface for almost 10 years for discrete work items (Different documents in Word, for instance) and MDI for related items (code files in Visual Studio, for instance).

Re:Tabs in IE7?

[Storlek]

Sure, there's lots of functionality on the middle mouse button, at least in *nix. Many applications use middle click to paste the contents of the clipboard. Nautilus uses it to open a folder and close the current window (in spatial mode), and several window managers bind various window operations to a middle click on the titlebar.

Re:Tabs in IE7?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. But ask the firefox developers, as that's the default in firefox until you install the righ extensions.

Re:Tabs in IE7?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS has been pushing an SDI interface for almost 10 years for discrete work items (Different documents in Word, for instance) and MDI for related items (code files in Visual Studio, for instance).

Ah, the dilemma of standardization. MS thinks of different documents in Word as discrete work items. I tend to think of applications as discrete work items, so I like all the Word documents available in one place, without the clutter of multiple windows. When Firefox opens something in a new window instead of a new tab, I usually close it and middle-click instead. Many people claim that you should use fewer, fuller directories, and open them in seperate windows, I like the sorting qualities of deeper, emptier directories, and I hate having a new window open up every time I click on a directory (8 just to get to what I'm working on).

Standardization is nice for programmers, trainers and tech support. Flexibility is nice for users. Most of us spend too many hours a day on a computer. Saving a few seconds (on a regular basis), a train of thought, or a little bit of frustration by having the computer work the way we think is a big win. That's why I like Unix, as well as old-school Unix programs like Emacs or AutoCAD. I can make them do what I want, I don't have to learn to do things their way. (Then again, sometimes I could probably be more productive if I learned the new way of thinking...)

I think it's ironic that people avoid Unix because it isn't "user friendly", but I consider it more user-friendly than the other big OSs (haven't used OS X much yet.) Sure it might be harder to learn, but it's worth it. I don't use a computer the same way as a newbie, why should I use the same interface? One thing about a zero learning curve system is that a newbie can be as productive as a 10-year user. The other thing is that a 10-year user is no more productive than a newbie.

So standardize on what is available, but provide many options and lots of customizability. Provide virtualization so that the apps don't have to think in terms of whether a command was typed, clicked, or input through thought control. Always provide a base-level fallback or easy switch to defaults, so that a tech can work at any machine without having to find the user's commands, or can fix a newbie's messed up interface. The holy grail is a system that is dead easy to use initially, but which helps the user become more advanced and customize, such that they grow to work better with each other.

Re:Tabs in IE7?

[DigitlDud]

This might sound totally crazy to a lot of you, but this is one way Microsoft stays in business, they respond to customer feedback. Tons of people are demanding tabs, and there you go. It doesn't matter if they make sense from a rational standpoint or not.

Re:Tabs in IE7?

[NanoGator]

"What's the point of having tabs if you still have your pop-up windows?"

Err maybe I'm just missing your point, here, but why wouldn't pop-ups benefit from tabs?

Re:Tabs in IE7?

[NanoGator]

"IIRC, didn't MS say that tabs really weren't a useful feature in browsers?"

Microsoft may sound like they're on crack, but I remember long drawn out debates about the usefulness of tabs when Opera started using them. The basic gist of the argument was something like "What do you think the task bar is for?!?!?!?"

In other words, yes, it is confusing to the uninitiated. Heck, I've been using Opera with its tabs (and before that, an MDI interface) for years. I recently started using FireFox as well, and I it took me a few "DOh!" moments to get used to its tabs. It's easy to forget about something when it's simplified down to a little box on the screen.

Re:Tabs in IE7?

[arbi]

You are correct. MS said that about a half a year ago. That story was covered in a previous Slashdot article. I actually posted a "mark my word" prediction that IE will have tabbed browsing within 12 months. So far it's been 6 months. :)
Tabbed browsing not important

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

LMFAO

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA "Keeping the User in Control"

That's why I left IE for Firefox.

Do more in one window

[quickbasicguru]

Now you can do all of this in one window:
1)Download Spyware
2)Download Adware
3)Download More Malware
4)Download your P0rn
5)Take a picture of yourself online.

Re:Do more in one window

[TubeSteak]

As long as the pop ups are tabbed in the background, everything else you listed is just an accidental feature?

Re:Do more in one window

[Anonymous Coward]

6) ...Profit?

I am happy Microsoft is interested in tabs.

[sllim]

All the old security problems were starting to bore me. Now I can look forward to an entire new set of problems.
Just think this time next year we will be griping about things like 'hijacked tabs' and such.

Re:I am happy Microsoft is interested in tabs.

[Erris]

Just think this time next year we will be griping about things like 'hijacked tabs' and such.

Your Windoze using friends might, if you are lucky. Right now, tabs in IE are add-ons and vapor. I'm afraid they will still be concerned with regular popups they can't turn off, as will regular spammers, even if old Bill comes through with this years old feature of other browsers.

In the free world, I've already seen tabs that can steal focus. They won't open unless I tell them too, but they do manage to override my open in background preference. Sites that do that get fewer views from me as a result. It's annoying, but not near as bad as being rooted.

Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[nurb432]

My windows machine is 2000. And since microsoft no longer supports me, i dont get any new features. ( or bugs ).

This isnt a 'me' post, there are a *lot* of people and businesses that have no plans to goto XP ( or server 2003 ) in the near future.

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[Anonymous Coward]

What little I do with MS is also W2K. If they ever get a multiuser version going, I might upgrade but there's no compelling reason to run XP or whatever the latest is just to use IE7. Sure Mozilla-Firefox is a bit slow to start up, but on the linux box it stays up for weeks ;-)

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[Storlek]

This isnt a 'me' post, there are a *lot* of people and businesses that have no plans to goto XP ( or server 2003 ) in the near future.

--
---- Me Me Me. That is all that matters ----

Your statement and signature are incongruent.

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[Anonymous Coward]

can't run PS3/Xbox360/Revolution games if i wanted to. there are a *lot* of people that have no plans to goto [nextgenconsole] in the near future.

can't run windows 2000 if i wanted to. my old 486 just won't take it.

cant.. blah blah blah.

get it?

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[nurb432]

Guess you are too damned ignorant to figure out the point i was trying to make.

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[TheCodeFoundry]

"since microsoft no longer supports me, i dont get any new features. ( or bugs "

That's crap and you know it. Windows 2000 goes into extended support June 30th. They are still supporting it. Typical /. post.....

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[GeeBee2k]

Jeez,

* I have Win95 and they haven't given me any NTFS yet! * Winge.

* Ford haven't updated my 1969 Mustang with ABS, and airbags either. * Winge.

Do you not understand? - in commercial world OLD products aren't given new features. It doesn't matter whether you are talking software, cars, or washing machines.

Thats no reason to stop bitching about MS, is it?

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[sootman]

"This isnt a 'me' post, there are a *lot* of people and businesses that have no plans to goto XP ( or server 2003 ) in the near future."

So it's a "Me, too!" post? :-)

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[Anonymous Coward]

In a commercial world products with serious flaws are recalled and people given their money back + they are held libel for any damage they cause.

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[DigitlDud]

They have to draw the line somewhere, right?

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[bergeron76]

in commercial world OLD products aren't given new features.
Likewise, they don't get all the bugs and security flaws either.

I bet it's safer to browse the web with an unpatched Windows 98 / IE 4.0 than it is with the most recently patched XP and IE versions.

I don't have any empirical evidence to back this up, but I'd be willing to bet cash on it.

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[_|()|\|]

since microsoft no longer supports [Windows 2000], i dont get any new features

While it's a little annoying that Microsoft is tying IE to the O/S, who has a longer support period? Will Apple give you a copy of Safari 2.0 for your OS X 10.1 system? Will Red Hat give you an RPM of Konqueror 3.4 for your RHEL 2.1 system (to say nothing of RHL 9)?

Vendors are adding functionality to the base O/S to make upgrades more compelling. If anything, Microsoft is late to the game in exploiting this.

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[freeweed]

in commercial world OLD products aren't given new features

Yeah, you're right. That's why Win2000 will only run the version of IE it came with in the first place.

Oh wait...

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[subgrappler]

but if 1/4 of the car driving world still drove '69 stangs then it would make more sense for them to get ABS brakes and airbags wouldnt it??

**not sure if win2k accounts for 25% of windows in use, it was just a guess... you get the idea.

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the very next posting on IEBlog. They aren't backporting IE7 to Win2000.

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[timmyf2371]

Maybe, but that still doesn't equate to new features being implemented in older products in the real world.

Bad analogy to use the car one, but if my car has a serious fault at the time of manufacture I would expect it to be fixed however I wouldn't expect new features from newer models to be backported to it.

Re:Cant run IE 7 even if i wanted too.

[optimus2861]

No, YOU don't understand -- all we Windows2000 users want is for Microsoft to actually stick to their damn word about how long Windows2000 is supposed to be in, their words, "Mainstream Support":

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin

Windows2000 - Mainstream Support Retired - June 30, 2005

Yet what has Microsoft given Windows2000 in the past year or so, compared to WindowsXP?

No Windows firewall.

No IE6 popup blocker.

No service pack akin to WinXP SP2 dedicated to security.

Microsoft has given the shaft to Windows2000, even while it's still in "Mainstream Support", and you say we're just "whining about old products"?

No, we're calling Microsoft liars when it comes to their so-called "support". And deservedly so.

Competition Fostering Innovation

[AntsInMyPants]

Looks like customers win here. Maybe Firefox wasn't the first to ever do multiple tabs, but their popularity spurred MS to do something to make their own browser better. Once customers start seeing other features in Firefox that aren't in IE and start complaining they will be (slowly) added. Competition works! But of course we already knew that....

Re:Competition Fostering Innovation

[MightyMartian]

And that's been the problem with Microsoft. They've managed to obtain a near monopoly, and no matter how often Billy Gates spouted the word "innovation" it hasn't been until open source really started putting pressure on them that we're saying improvements. Left to their own devices, I'm quite sure Microsoft wouldn't have updated IE for another few years. Why would they have? They'd all but killed Netscape and Opera and Mozilla were bit players. Now they've seen, considering how long they've dominated the browser market, a major slip.

Wooo

[billieja2]

This core functionality is largely catch-up to other browsers which support tabs, but a necessary foundation for future work.

Atleast they acknowledge it finally.

An interesting opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/4658/

I agree with him. Firefox is quite slow. A multi-threaded IE on a HyperThreaded/dual-core processor will surely perform like a beast ...

Re:An interesting opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a bit of a tit aren't you? IE is multi-threaded anyway. All that spyware being downloaded concurrently.....

Re:An interesting opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Shutup fatty!

New features creating bugs in old features?

[goneutt]

Okay, I'll admitt that I use IE. And I know it's full of bugs and glitches. Most of which I never see.

Since the tabs have been a function used in other web browsers for some time, the new mass deployment will give new reason to abuse users tabs by hijack-sites, hackers, and other undesirables. I know they say there are no commands to control tabs, but that doesn't mean they aren't tamper proof.

In esscence, will IE's incorporation of common features lead to bugs (or flaws) being found in other browsers.

Re:New features creating bugs in old features?

[Soul-Burn666]

You never see these bugs and glitches because web designers hack up their code away from the standards just so it'll render ok in IE.
Most sites can't bear to lose the IE market share.

Re:New features creating bugs in old features?

[cirisme]

Please. Next you'll be saying that better standards support is bad because Microsoft's dominance will mean that people will find security problems in other browsers. What? Doesn't really make much sense, but even if true it can only allow the competitors to improve while IE languishes in it's inferiority as a web browser.

Re:New features creating bugs in old features?

[Hank Chinaski]

Please tell me, is there any good reason for sticking to IE? I can't think of one. Most other browsers (e.g. firefox) are superior in each and every aspect (configuration, speed, usability, features!) to IE. And I haven't seen a website that doesn't work with gecko browsers in years.

Re:New features creating bugs in old features?

[antiMStroll]

That's an interesing thought, but as a user of Mozilla since it first compiled I can't think of a single instance in which tabs have presented a treat of abuse. So what are these "bugs (or flaws) being found in other browsers."?

Re:New features creating bugs in old features?

[Shadowlore]

Okay, I'll admitt that I use IE. And I know it's full of bugs and glitches. Most of which I never see.

No, you see them. You just don't realize it.

tabbed browsing and window management

[cryptoz]

One of the main reasons I stay away from Windows is the extremely poor window management. Hence the reason I'm using GNOME with six virtual desktops. And I can have dozens of web pages open and still take only one spot on my bottom panel.

My point is that "tabbed browsing" is not a god-like feature. It's just something that helps with a user's window management (the ability to be able to have a bunch of web pages open at one time without making a huge mess is NOT a web browser problem, it's an entire usability issue for the whole machine).

Yes, I know there are attempts at virtual desktops in Windows, but they all suck. I've tried them. They're either too slow, don't work properly (ie, they leave the minimized windows on the task bar the entire time...I don't get how thatworks).

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[billieja2]

I use windows I just wish they'd develop a half decent virtual desktop manager... i'd be so much happier.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[DanteLysin]

>

I'm not sure if you tried this, but there is a Virtual Desktop Manager for Windows XP.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx

I used to use one back in Windows 98 days ... vdesk I think. Wish I could remember. Brain doesn't work well on a Friday night.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[MightyMartian]

Multiple desktops is the one thing I simply couldn't live without any more. I'm pretty much a dedicated Fluxbox user nowadays, and the ease of flipping between desktops makes my life a helluva lot easier. I go work on a Windows box and it just drives me nuts.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[cryptoz]

As it happens, yes I have tried that one. It's horrible. I stand by my previous point.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[Anonymous Coward]

virt-dimension does a decent job at virtual desktops in windows. It isnt perfect but it seems good enough for those stuck in windows. Windows from other desktops don't show up as simply being minimized and Alt-Tab only tabs through the windows on your current desktop. And it even seems to be fast on a P3 600. The only complaint I have is that occasionaly some windows seem to get "stuck" in a "always on top" setting for some reason. Though that might be related to something else I'm doing.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[Anonymous Coward]

First, realize that not everyone wants their window manager to behave like you want yours to behave.

And as has been related ad nauseam, some of us like to segregate browsing categories by desktop, with one browser window on each. I have always prefered MDI-style apps to SDI apps no matter what OS or window manager I'm using.

FWIW, I use bblean as my window manager under windows and am perfectly happy with it's virtual desktops.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[jhoger]

The "desktop" metaphor sucks and deserves to die. Hell, I can't find anything on my *real* desktop why would anyone organize a WM that way? Surely there's something better by now.

There is... tabs should be a feature of the window manager, not the application (unless it's a tabbed dialog).

On my desktop I use Ion WM, a tabbed window manager. Apps open full-screen or within a subdivision of the main window, providing tabs for navigation.

Ion WM works with some applications better than others. It would be nice to see some support built in to X and X applications. Not sure what that means, but basically tab-aware applications would be a good way to go versus trying to make every application implement tabs in its own non-standard way.

-- John.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[nostriluu]

Nvidia and ATI seems to ship virtual desktop managers with their full blown drivers, which are at least better than Microsoft's supplied hack. Used ATI's in the past, using NVidia's now - mostly works but has terrible rules for when to switch (yes, I do want to switch away from a busy desktop to read my mail) and just goes away sometimes, leaving me stranded on a virtual destkop.

Nothing has been nearly as good ("just works") as the 1990s and on implementions I'm used to under systems like Gnome. Amazing.

Someday Linux notebook drivers will be good and I'll switch back.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[MagicM]

For anyone looking for a virtual desktop manager for Windows, check out XDESK. Yes, the website looks awful, and yes the options screens are dreadful, and yes it's bloated with features you'll never use, but at the core is a very solid and fast virtual desktop manager, complete with a very nice pager.

It's Shareware. They have a 30-day trial version, as well as a free 'lite' version.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not bad except for the ridiculous issue that my windows often magically ended up on different virtual desktops for no reason and then suddenly would switch desktops again, which is why I stopped using it.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[DanteLysin]

I remember now. It was called "zddesk". It was written by Ziff-Davis in 1997. You can have up to 9 virtual desktops and can mark programs as "sticky" across all desktops (e.g. your favorite mp3 player).

http://freepctech.com/rode/003.shtml

It's not bad for a program written in 1997. And you're right ... the Microsoft one is kinda cheesy. I should have tried it before posting the link.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[DigitlDud]

I agree, tabbed browsing isn't that great. It's for people who run their browsers maximized because they don't understand windowing interfaces or lack the resolution. Being able to actually see the page I want to switch to as opposed to memorizing its title (which may be obscure) is much better.

Tabbed browsing does have SOME uses though (like for porn and whatnot).

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[toddestan]

I agree, tabbed browsing isn't that great. It's for people who run their browsers maximized because they don't understand windowing interfaces or lack the resolution. Being able to actually see the page I want to switch to as opposed to memorizing its title (which may be obscure) is much better.

You must be thinking of the way Firefox and Safari do tabs. I suggest you try Opera's way of doing tabs before knocking the concept entirely. Opera actually treats each tab as its own window inside of the main program's window. The windows can be resized, tiled, and moved around just like you might expect. You can even drag the tabs out of the main program, creating an entirely seperate window (great for dual head). Basically you have all the advantages of tabs and seperate windows at the same time.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[Jimmy_B]

Actually, you *can* get good virtual desktops on Windows... but to do so, you have to replace the entire window manager. Litestep is a replacement shell for Windows which supports virtual desktops properly. It's also very configurable, which is good, although you may have to try a few themes before you find a usable one.

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[Anonymous Coward]

Try powerpro; there's even a demo config of a multiple-window setup. I've been using it for years now and will never go back. It's the only thing that keeps me sane on my work WindowsXP box.
It's got a brutal website, and honestly, I've never used even half the functionality but it handles multiple desktops about 99% correctly in my eyes. http://powerpro.webeddie.com/

Re:tabbed browsing and window management

[ByteSlicer]

I've tried a number of free and non-free virtual desktop utilities, but the one I've settled with is VirtuaWin. It's small and open source. Just changed the settings a bit, and downloaded some nice tray icons (blue 3x3). You can configure it to switch with WIN+(number key), move windows from one desktop to another with CTRL+(drag).

Monopoly

[Jesus IS the Devil]

No Thanks. Microsoft is full of crap. They sit around and do NOTHING for the past 3-4 years (since they slaughtered Netscape). And now that finally there's competition they get off their lazy a$$es and steal other people's ideas once again.

M$ gets no respect from me.

Re:Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a question ... who's ideas did they steal? -- Because it sure as hell wasn't the Mozilla Foundation's.

Re:Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

Re:Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

> M$ gets no respect from me.

You weren't perchance looking for respect yourself, were you? Don't hold your breath waiting or anything. Just so you know.

Re:Monopoly

[NanoGator]

"And now that finally there's competition they get off their lazy a$$es and steal other people's ideas once again."

So.. did FireFox 'steal' their ideas from Opera, then? They don't get your repsect, either?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not thrilled with MS's laziness with IE either, but 'stealing' tabs? Please. It's a standard feature for web browsing and has been for years. It'd be really dumb of MS NOT to include it. FireFox did a good job of, pardon the expression, lighting a fire under MS. Now the FireFox team is going to have to work harder. This means a better browser for you.

Both FireFox and IE get better. Oh the horror.

Re:Monopoly

[DigitlDud]

How the hell is the parent insightful? This guy is spelling his 's's with dollar signs for crying out loud.

Re:Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

by definition if theres competition they aren't a monopoly anymore

Re:Monopoly

[tehshen]

IIRC, Opera's tabs were just an MDI interface in a single window, while Mozilla's tabs were a bar on each window, allowing for new windows and everything.
Likewise, Opera's popup blocker stopped all new windows from opening; when Mozilla 'stole' the feature they improved it so only popups launched when the page opens are blocked.

Microsoft, on the other hand, just takes other applications' features and does nothing to improve them. You would think, with their horde of programmers, that they would add something new and innovative to IE. They are even using Opera's old single-window popup blocking method, which is annoying enough to make everyone I know turn it off.

I am not annoyed that Microsoft is catching up with three years ago now, I am annoyed that it's caught up with three years ago and isn't even going to tiptoe any further.

Three years ago is 'good enough', I suppose?

Re:Monopoly

[timmyf2371]

So which operating software do you use? I sense you would be rather limited.

Let's see...

Apple stole the original Xerox GUI idea
Microsoft stole the GUI idea from Apple
KDE & Gnome stole the idea of a taskbar and GUI system
Linux stole ideas from Unix systems
DOS was "stole" from one of Bill Gates' associates...

So, you probably use AmigaOS or C64 BASIC or something like that?

Re:Monopoly

[NanoGator]

"I am annoyed that it's caught up with three years ago and isn't even going to tiptoe any further."

What is your basis for that assumption? IE7's not even out yet, and MS isn't going to give FireFox time to catch up to them.

Re:Monopoly

[spectecjr]

No Thanks. Microsoft is full of crap. They sit around and do NOTHING for the past 3-4 years (since they slaughtered Netscape). And now that finally there's competition they get off their lazy a$$es and steal other people's ideas once again.

A bit like when Firefox stole XP SP2's Warning Bar, huh?

Didn't hear you complaining about that.

Re:Tabbed browsing is news?

[whitehatlurker]

And they rejected the geek's Holy Grail:

Charisma is the Holy Grail?

Good ol' M$

[cataclyst]

Glad to see that M$ is taking the time to address the REAL concerns facing it. Like how to emulate the UI of better software without that whole originality concept getting in the way. Maybe it'll even be impressive enough for some of the potential end users to forget why people started switching away from IE in the first place: the security holes bigger than -[insert 'yo mama' joke here]- worst...priorites...EVER...

I'd like to see comparison notes

[bogaboga]

I'd like to see comparison notes with Firefox. Any slashdot hacker/software-engineer care to elaborate how the Firefox team has handled some of the issues this IE engineer has raised?

Rip Off!

[Entropy248]

This is totally a rip-off (from the user standpoint) of standard Firefox behavior. Nice innovation. But, they didn't mention the ability to drag tabs around (to change the order) though.

It also seems like they are quite sincere in catching up fully in the browser feature race. Now IE will have a pop-up blocker and tabs. Sounds a lot like we again have a nearly identical major feature set as a neat bulleted list for marketing. Plus, IE will forever have a faster start-up time (by cheating).

We need to stay ahead in features to stay competitive. We need more features to watch porn more efficiently!

Re:Rip Off!

[The Bungi]

This is totally a rip-off

Wait... are you saying Mozilla invented tabbed browsing? Surely you jest. What exactly is MS "ripping off" here?

Plus, IE will forever have a faster start-up time (by cheating)

Cheating how?

Re:Rip Off!

[alphakappa]

But, they didn't mention the ability to drag tabs around (to change the order)
Does Firefox have this feature? or is it available in an extension?

Re:Rip Off!

[phoenix.bam!]

technically because you can't close IE. Meh, I wouldn't call it cheating. Basically IE starts when windows is booted. Firefox only gets loaded when you click the pretty little icon.

Re:Rip Off!

[DigitlDud]

Just like Firefox ripped IE's info bar down to its color, except Firefox's is fatter and lacks accessibility. Right? =) Dragging tabs around seems a likely feature given the fact other Microsoft products that use tabbed interfaces also have this feature (Visual Studio, etc.)

Re:Rip Off!

[Chapium]

You ever use the Mac version of IE? Its had tabs since one of the OS 9's

Re:Rip Off!

[timmyf2371]

I remember from the Mozilla suite before Firefox was around had an option to pre-load at startup into the taskbar tray.

How I wish Firefox had a similar feature.

Re:Rip Off!

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to stay ahead in features to stay competitive. We need more features to watch porn more efficiently!

use firefox with linky (view all image links in one tab/new window): it's quite effective to just browse interesting pictures an no adds (which are page links)

or with flashgot -> buildgalery :)

I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[bluGill]

I know tabs are the killer that takes users from IE, but I'd prefer they work on their rendering. Their CSS doesn't work.

We make all our sites to work in Konqueror now, and only minor tweaking is needed for Firefox and safari. Easy enough, all are so close to the standard that there is little difficulty. IE doesn't work. We have to spend three times the effort to make it work in IE without breaking the rest. (We have chosen to not detect IE and give you a different page. I'm still not sure about the wisdom of that)

Typical Microsoft though, make it look nice, who cares if it works right so long as the users don't know.

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[LiquidCoooled]

Isn't the idea of standards compliant browsing to eliminate the need for making even minor tweaks to the codebase?

I might be a bit of an idealist, but a standard isn't a standard if it must be tweaked for everyone.

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[cirisme]

Yes, but no rendering engine exists that lacks bugs and no standard exists where there aren't misinterpretations. How great those problems appear depends on how far out you go. If you do mostly basic stuff, I find that you don't need any modifications in all the major browsers excluding Explorer. if you push out to the more advanced and less used features of the standard, you start to run into buggy renderings (because it's far enough out that it hasn't been entirely tested) or places where the spec was open to misinterpretation and different rendering engines handle it differently.

The problem with Explorer is that it can barely handle some of the more basic CSS in a way consistent with anything else out there (including the standard), let alone the more advanced ones.

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[bluGill]

I may not claim that our code is perfect when we first write it. We make it work in Konqueror first, but sometimes Konqueror is more forgiving of our mistakes. The tweaks needed for firefox and Safari are tiny, and they don't break Konqueror. You can argue that in many cases the the problems are out fault, not the browser. ( Don't read this as Konqueror being wrong, they are often areas where the standard doesn't say what should happen if you abuse things in that way)

IE is a different story. The tweaks needed to make IE work bring our code away from the standard, not closer to it.

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[Anonymous Coward]

(We have chosen to not detect IE and give you a different page. I'm still not sure about the wisdom of that)

*smirk* If you do decide to detect IE, you should add a line; "This page designed to render correctly in Firefox", with an appropriate link.

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[gonaddespammed.com]

You should detect IE, send them to a page letting the user know they are using a dangerous browser offering links to alternative browsers (FireFox, Opera etc)

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight..

You purposely use HTML that you *know* does not work with 80% of the browser population. And you state that reaching that population will require 3x the time?

Spend 1 hour to reach 20 people, or
Spend 4 hours to reach 100 people, or...

Make your site a little less fancy and spend 1 hour coding in HTML that works across ALL browsers... and reach 100 people.

Unless you're developing some kind of internal application, and everyone on your network is a non-IE user, I would hate to have to justify to my boss why I hired you to do our website.

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[bluGill]

I thought of that. However there were two objections:
Most of our customers use IE, and it is hard to call something easy to use when you force them to install a different browser.
I'm a great fan of Anybrowser, from back when netscape 1.1 was polluting the cross platform web. I still have not forgiven Netscape for introducing Frames and javascript - which were heavily abused in those days to lock out any other browser. (Javascript has uses, but it was mostly abused 10 years ago. Frames are evil)

I agree that IE is dangerous. However we are not in the business of recommending browsers.

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[bluGill]

We know for a fact that some of our customers are Windows only, and others are unix (AIX). The former are either clueless, or very locked down - for either IE is the most likely choice. They will not install firefox for us. IE doesn't run on AIX, so we have to support firefox.

Half the developers prefer a Unix desktop, and run Konqueror/safari (one guy brings his own laptop cause we only supply x86), while the Windows people run firefox. We could drop Konqueror/safari, but once you have firefox those are trivial. We cannot drop IE or firefox because there are known customers that are locked into one.

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[msimm]

Try CSS conditional comments like:

<!--[if IE]>
<style>
div.logo {
margin-left: 10px;
}
</style>
<![endif]-->

or

<!--[if gte IE 6]>
<style>
div.logo {
margin-left: 50px;
}
</style>
<![endif]-->

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[ArsenneLupin]

We know for a fact that some of our customers are Windows only, ...

You mpiselled " We know that trough the fact that our site only... "

(SCNR)

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[ArsenneLupin]

Or, more simply, try something like this:

<style>
* html body {
font-size: 1px;
background: #ffffff;
color: #fefefe;
}
</style>

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[Clansman]

"IE doesn't work. We have to spend three times the effort to make it work in IE without breaking the rest. "

Sure, but given that that amounts to the vast majority of your site visitors, no big problem. Just be thankful that to make your site fun for the minority it is ony taking an extra 25% etc etc

Re:I'd prefer they fixed their rendering

[bluGill]

No, making it work on other browsers costs essentially nothing because we make the site following the directions set out by the w3c, and we have to spend that much. We then have to figure out why IE isn't working and find a work around that works. Even dropping the others this is more work than designing the site right to begin with.

Where is the difference/

[incuso]

As a subject, where is the innovation? I do not think MS will simply copycat other browser.

M.

Re:Where is the difference/

[Anonymous Coward]

> I do not think MS will simply copycat other browsers.

No, they'll copy it and then get it patented as their invention. ;-)

doesn't work for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Lynx isn't showing anything out of the ordinary.

Innovative? No

[DrIdiot]

I'm sure that Microsoft will sell IE7 as "cutting edge" software, especially since those ideas were implemented by TBE in Firefox before IE7 was even considered.

"Did you hear about the new IE7? It has tabs, that's like, totally, new technology. Only Bill Gates could come up with something so genius!"

Why?

[bit01]

Why is a minor detail of a closed source, unhackable software product that isn't even released yet a front page story on slashdot?

M$ advertising wastes enough of our time already without giving it away.

This is quite clearly a marketing move by M$ to create mindshare for when the new M$IE version is released and I for one am sick of such manipulation.

---

Keep your options open!

Re:Why?

[Soul-Burn666]

Because it serves the noble cause of letting slashdotters bash MS more, especially when it's justified.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've replaced the letter S with a dollar sign, so you must know what you're talking about.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet Explorer is hardly "un-hackable". If anything Microsoft's piss-poor security track record has show us that Internet Explorer is one of the most hackable pieces of software in existence today.

Re:Tabbed browsing is news?

[Colin Smith]

Mmmmmmmm.

On that note, have you read the DaVinci code?

YAWN

[Dakisha]

Opera has had this for as long as I can remember.. Middle click for open in background - shift-click for foreground. Ctrl-shift click for open in background if you want a keyboard version.

And besides.. Why is this news anyway? Wow, IE can do what all the other browsers have had for ages.

Re:YAWN

[nahpets77]

I was waiting for someone to mention that. Why is there so much hype about IE7 getting tabs YEARS after every other browser? IE is SOOO far behind Firefox in terms of usability, I find it amazing that people still use IE, even after trying Firefox.

Let me guess....

[pg110404]

Tabs are going to confuse most users for some unknown reason, but due to popular demand, IE7 will finally have them?

Wow.

But on an aside, will they be using that mentality and implementing them in a similar way as others, or will microsoft go their own way again as usual and set their own standard which they will try to force everyone to adhere to and firefox and the likes will be forced to implement something similar?

It doesn't matter what they do

[madaxe42]

Joe user won't upgrade until he gets a new machine.

Re:It doesn't matter what they do

[Trejkaz]

Or until the automatic Windows Update does it for him.

it doesn't make sense

[microbee]

I don't understand the complexity. Maxthon can do it so well, why is it difficult to do in IE7? If it's because building sth on top of IE is easier than changing IE itself, then build something on top of IE and call that something IE. I find what the blog said completely hard to comprehend.

Re:it doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the fetish with Maxthon. I was using tabbed browsing back in 1999 with Netcaptor.

Re:it doesn't make sense

[klatty]

Ditto...why is this taking so long?

MS corporate red tape maybe?

Wow! IE's getting tabs! Holy crap!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's news! It was exciting beyond all belief the first time, and it just keeps getting more exciting every time you post news about this. If it isn't too much to ask, do you guys think you could keep us current on every time Bill Gates pulls his briefs out of his ass crack, too? Thanx! Great job!

QUICK! Patent tabbed browsing

[ZeroExistenZ]

If they patent the "middle click to open a tab" and the "control click to open a tab" the OpenSource community can so own M$

Re:QUICK! Patent tabbed browsing

[Anonymous Coward]

If the open source movement was the first the implement it they might stand a better chance though...

Re:QUICK! Patent tabbed browsing

[Shin-Natsume]

i think that right clicking is better, as more people have the ability to right click than middle click, :P :P besides who could patent it, who was the first to make it? :P ciao

what a great idea!!

[Some_Llama]

"whereas ordinary pop-up windows will open in a new foreground tab. "

Hmm, how about ordinary pop up windows not opening AT ALL!?!?

I have just started using Firefox and I love how most pop-ups are blocked, and the ones that do happen to pop thru open in a new Background window so they are easily killed...

from TFA:
"We are working on balancing the default behavior for whether a window opened from script opens.."

How about let me choose what behavior I want from my browser instead of making all of these "defaults" which I will end up changing anyway because they are usually the less intuitive choice. sheesh.. i'll just stick with Firefox.

Side note, since changing to Firefox, my 4 home systems which my family uses (that used to fill up with spyware weekly) have been running spyware free now for 2 weeks. Thanks Mozilla...

Re:what a great idea!!

[man_of_mr_e]

There are legitimate uses for popups. For example, we run "web kiosks" at school that allow students to register for classes and such. Occasionally, we need to send a student outside of our site to a state or federal site and we tend to open those up in new popup windows so that they can get back to our site just by closing the window, otherwise there would be no way for them to get "home" (they don't have a back button either in kiosk mode).

Otherwise, 2 or 3 times a day we have to send someone to the kiosks to reset them to the default page.

Oh, and don't even think about suggesting frames, the java servlets used by our registration system don't work right in frames, not to mention all the other problems related to frames and usability.

Re:what a great idea!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about let me choose what behavior I want from my browser instead of making all of these "defaults" which I will end up changing anyway because they are usually the less intuitive choice.

You don't want any default behavior at all? How do you propose this be implemented?

Re:what a great idea!!

[Ilgaz]

I bet they didn't use Opera 3.x in their life.

When the genius (!) idea of popup based signing in etc popped up, you could HATE that browser.

Opening a popup as a tab is the ugliest thing ever.

Opera was pure MDI those times and they had to change a lot since people like me got mad. Even opening a new browser window for popup was better.

Oh the background tab etc. I bet they will put small rendered windows instead of tabs like this: http://www.omnigroup.com/images/images-5/features/ tabs.png

Everyone steals from Omniweb these days ;) Glad I licensed it in horrible beta test seeing "This is the future"

Re:what a great idea!!

[jsoderba]

Have about enabling the back button. Intuitive navigation is one of the greatest usability wins of the web compared to most information systems. I can't imagine any reason to disable the navigation buttons, but the most likely reason seems to be that your IT department is staffed with idiots who've never actually used a web browser.

Re:what a great idea!!

[Some_Llama]

" Have about enabling the back button."

Or how about opening a new window instead of a pop up?

Either way Firefox will still allow me to see missed popup windows, but then again it is my choice, not what someone has decided I have to deal with...

Re:what a great idea!!

[man_of_mr_e]

Sounds like the moron here is you. It's not a matter of "enabling" the back button. There *IS* no back button in Kiosk mode. There's nothing to enable. Why not learn what you're talking about before you start making suggestions and calling people idiots? No, sorry, that would be asking too much of slashdot.

Re:what a great idea!!

[man_of_mr_e]

Opening a new window *IS* a popup. What are you smoking?

Again, I'm not talking about what happens on YOUR browser, I'm talking about what happens on a publicly accessible web Kiosk that is not supposed to be use for browsing anything other than the pages necessary to register for classes.

You are correct

[Eternally optimistic]

And MS still believes they are not very useful, except they can add bloat. That's why they are now needed.

Tabs? Got'em Already!

[slappycakes]

Check-out http://www.microgarden.com/webtools/index.htm They've been available for some time. I would like to see a more innovative approach to web browsing. Now that would be worthy of posting!

Re:Innovative? No

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh give it a rest. There's been a lot of ripping off, all right, but it's always been Firefox doing the ripping. Tabbed browsing was stolen from Opera. The Google search bar? Ripped from Safari. Indeterminate progress indicator? Ripped from Mac OS X. Toolbar rearrangement dialog? Also ripped from OS X. It just never stops. Stealing and gloating and on and on and on.

I can't think of a single user interface innovation from open source software, and Firefox in particular.

So... reading the comments here, Microsoft sucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they copied the idea of tabs from other browsers? I *know* there would be a lot of bitching if they decided to keep tabs out... so I'm confused now. What exactly should they do to avoid getting insulted?

Stuff that Matters

[asciiRider]

Let's all try to remember that this is supposed to be 'stuff that matters' -

I hate to break it to everybody, but this doesn't matter.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Re:Stuff that Matters

[timmyf2371]

That may well be your opinion, but it doesn't necessarily make it right.

If Internet Explorer 7 comes out with features such as tabbed browsing & popup blocking which are my main reason for using Firefox, then it stands to reason that if IE does it better then I would start using Internet Explorer again.

Really really secure... the One Microsoft Way

[rice_burners_suck]

In my opinion, Microsoft could create something called Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 Tab Security Center. This technology would protect the user by providing a "delete=all" tag, which would run a background task in the OS kernel that would delete random files in random locations in the filesystem. This is the One Microsoft Way to make the user really really secure.

Re:Innovative? No

[sim82]

In the reality of most of the people who have not yet changed to another browser, IE 7 is the first browser that supports tabs. It's just like that blue 'e' that is 'The Internet'. (I'm not talking about people who run IE not only because it was installed when they got their computer)

Worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

Why post such a worthless article about obsolete technology? The only plausible reasoning is that some aspect of the website in which it was posted is itself worthless and obsolete.

Not about tabs, but...

[93 Escort Wagon]

As a web developer, I am looking forward to seeing IE7. Seriously. While I do recommend Firefox to people when the opportunity comes up, all I really care about is the rendering. If IE7 does a good enough job with CSS and the DOM in general that I can code something once and it'll work most of the time in all the common browsers, I'll be one happy camper.

I know we'll never reach the point where 100% of code will "work on all browsers the first time, every time". But if IE's performance gets to the point where its quirkiness is no more of an issue than Safari's or Gecko's, then that'll be good enough for me. Right now IE probably adds 30% to my development time for any project, because the reality is things have to work acceptably well in IE.

Re:Not about tabs, but...

[toddestan]

If I was you, I would be dreading IE7. I'm sure it will be a little bit better at CSS and DOM, but it will have it's quirks and bugs that you'll need to program around - which will be nothing like the current quirks and bugs found in current versions of IE. And to add to the headache, I'm guessing you'll have to still support the various versions of IE6 for quite a long time into the future.

AAAAAARRRRGGGGHH!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is the ONE entity in the universe in a position to do this right, and they pass.

Tabs should not be a feature of the browser, they should be a behaviour of MDI windows. (you remember MDI windows ... they are those apps you hate that use windows in windows ... well if those same apps used tabs instead of tile, cascade or just get in the way, you would be loving them)

The browser should be an MDI app and should get tabs for "free" from the window manager.

They have the OS, they have the windowing system, they have the browser ... This is a slam dunk. How could they have missed this?

cjcyrxv

Re:AAAAAARRRRGGGGHH!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, MDI is what Opera does. I don't get the whole tab fad either.

Re:AAAAAARRRRGGGGHH!!!

[earthbound kid]

Yeah, I think I agree with you. It's been my opinion for a while that Apple should add a standard way to make/control tabbed windows to OS X, so that people don't end up reinventing it all the time. (Not sure how familiar you are with OS X apps, but see also: Adium, TextMate, etc., etc.). Another advantage of Apple adding a standard way to do tabs is that Exposé could then easily have the tabs pop into view when people hit F9 or F10. Oh well, it would be nice

old news

[m85476585]

Tabbed browsing for IE has been around for a long time (2002). Maxthon is a shell for IE. I used to like it better than Firefox.

w2k terminal server.

[nurb432]

Its a product ( being phased out as 2003 server is shipping ) that supports concurrent multi-user...

So did NT terminal server before that..

Tab-Overs? Tab-Ups? Tab-Up Blockers

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the bit where they said web developers will be able to open a tab IN FRONT of the other tabs.

Microsoft clearly still sees users as fodder.

It would take microsoft to make copy a feature and make it an annoyance.

Thank god for Ubuntu, I very rarely visit my Windows Partition.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Who cares about IE ?

[Anonymous Coward]

IE = Crap.

Move along now, there are better browsers down the way.

Or shall we start a "the ZX81 128Kb RAM packs will be here later today" thread ?

IE = Total Crap.

revised

[line.at.infinity]

Actually, it should be like this:

On Safari and Firefox Mac:
* middle click, shift click == same as left click
* cmd-click == open link in new tab
* option-click == download link

On Firefox Win:
* ctrl-click == open link in new tab
* shift-click == download link

I just plugged in a mouse with three buttons that I haven't configured and tried.

Re:revised

[Clockwurk]

and one more revision:

On Firefox Win:
* ctrl-click == open link in new tab
* Alt-click == download link

Re:revised

[Clockwurk]

and

Firefox Win:
* Shift-click == Open in new window

Re:revised

[line.at.infinity]

Crap you're right. My Windows PC have been dead for awhile (something about getting DMI pool data errors on bootup). I forgot these things... I think a "modify comment" feature wouldn't be too horrible on slashdot...

Re:revised

[line.at.infinity]

Also it seems like shift-click == new window for FireFox mac.

just what IE needs

[v1]

whereas ordinary pop-up windows will open in a new foreground tab

... another way to open pop-ups.

CSS?

[TubeSteak]

What does MS's business plan have to do with correct CSS implementation?

I know their implementation is broken, but I thought they did that just cause they're dicks and not because it impacted their business plans.

Re:CSS?

[KillerDeathRobot]

Their business plans involve locking people into their proprietary software, right? Improper implementation of CSS means that people have to pick which browser to code for and since IE is the most popular browser, people will code for IE. Or at least, this is Microsoft's hope.

Nowadays IE supports standards well enough in most cases that you can get most pages working well enough on all or most modern browsers (other than some bugs). I would love IE to be more compatible with standards, but as long as it doesn't get worse, I'll deal.

Learning from the original?

[Metaphorically]

FTA:

Currently, windows that have been customized, such as hiding a toolbar or making the window non-resizable, will default to opening in their own standalone frame, ... The rationale for opening only customized windows in a new frame is that this seems to correlate with scenarios where showing a window on top of the current window is desirable

The interesting thing is that I read this blog post yesterday, then I also ran across something on the Firefox tips page. It basically says that by setting browser.link.open_newwindow.restriction to 2, Firefox will behave the same way. I think this is the default setting nowadays, because Fx already did this for me without my changing any prefs.

I suppose it's a logical conclusion for anyone building tabbed browsing into a web browser, but when I first read the tip I was struck by the similarity in the reasoning.

Re:Tabbed browsing is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did. Here it is to save people from having to read the book. "Be sure to drink your ovaltine". It's true. You're welcome.

More interesting to me would be extensions

[roman_mir]

Tabs are great, sure, but there are things more important than tabs in a modern browser. Now if MSIE actually implemented cascading style sheet 2 standard that would be something. But even that is not enough anymore.

They have to support XPI extensions and have to be compatible with FireFox to become an option for me at this point. I don't care about browsers that don't support XPI extensions any-longer.

But I am biased, I have created 2 extensions myself: Russ Key and Leet Key. Unless I can set these and other extensions up in MSIE I am not interested.

Petition to reconsider tabbed functionality

[timecop]

I've created an online petition to stop Microsoft from enabling tab functionality by default in IE7.
Those who are concerned about this, please sign! Tabbed browsing is a failure, Microsoft should listen to the users and interface research, not to fanatics who think tabs are a good idea.
href="http://www.petitiononline.com/msie7tab/petit ion.html.

Re:Petition to reconsider tabbed functionality

[Anonymous Coward]

we would like [...] enabling to require a restart or logoff of current user

I hate tabs (why are we working around bad window managers instead of fixing them?) but there's no conceivable justification for this requirement. It only serves to harass users who want to experiment with them.

took the words out of my mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

xml in IE is a piece of ...
css2 wel i realy do not care about the layout of a site aslong as it's functional.
the box model same goes as css2
png transparency, well euh OSS browser makers sorry please let me use aplha on other stuff like IE does but without activeX.
not that i care much since it's in the same place as the css crap but if your blabering about png blaber about the rest towards the other side aswell.

that for the topic /. team you seem to have a lot of time
why not try to make /. xhtml basic valid insted of
writing some shit that i have to enter if i want to post something that is bound not to be read.
zftcacj.

no, that's not going to happen.

[Erris]

... will IE's incorporation of common features lead to bugs (or flaws) being found in other browsers[?]

No it won't. First, Microsoft sucks. Second, free Browsers don't suck. Third, the same problem has yet to emerge for "normal" popups.

Microsoft is nice enough to leave annoying pop up behavior on for the victim. You might recall the article summary:

We are working on balancing the default behavior for whether a window opened from script opens as in a new frame or a tab. Currently, windows that have been customized, such as hiding a toolbar or making the window non-resizable, will default to opening in their own standalone frame, whereas ordinary pop-up windows will open in a new foreground tab. CTRL-clicking and middle-clicking links will open those links in a background tab.

Why would anyone bother to subvert tabs when they can insert a dozen controlless, blinking adverts before the user of this mindlessly trusting browser?

Free browsers are not as trusting. Konqueror has a check box that turns off scripts by default and a white list of sites that you can selectively trust. I've got about two or three sites on my whitelist. Mozilla is similarly non trusting. Pushing buttons, of course, will make things happen but only as a non privileged user so one user's mistake will not compromise other users or the system itself. This will protect most users but diversity will protect the rest even if everyone used free browsers. It will take individual hacks to overcome Mozilla and Konqueror and what works on one probably won't work on the other. Being able to lie about your user agent or use other tabbed browsers, such as Galleon, or Dillo eliminates the need to worry about anything M$ doing to their victims.

Finally, abuse of Microsoft junk has yet to bother free browser users. The widespread, but declining, use of IE has yet to create annoying popups for free software users. If anyone does manage to abuse free browsers, you can be sure they will all be fixed in a day or so.

Re:no, that's not going to happen.

[goneutt]

Excellent reply, I needed an informed person to make statements counter to my thoughts. Perhaps this weekend I'll migrate to one of the non-M$ web browsers. I'd like to bypass IE's propensity to spawn a bunch of windows.

That is, of course, dependant on how well I do at the casinos. I may not be upright.

THIS is news?

[Evil Pete]

Let me see, a feature in every other browser finally makes it to a non-released possible version of IE and it is news. Sorry, not trolling ... honestly, who gives a shit?

What I WANT to see.

[Khyber]

I want to see several things with this new IE...

If I can't change the size or position of a window, it needs to go away. I don't want it in my face or in direct view of what I'm trying to read.

Pop-up stopping, period. If I want a pop-up, I'll shift+click to have it come to my screen, and only for that link, not the several other pop-up links embedded in the now-loading HTML file.

I want TOTAL control of my browsing experience, none of these trusted sites spoofable problems I keep getting.

I WANT IE TOTALLY NON-INTEGRATED WITH THE OS!!!! CAN'T YOU IDIOTS AT M$ SEE THAT INTEGRATION IS WHY YOU'VE GOT SO MANY DAMNED PROBLEMS TO BEGIN WITH?!?!?!

I love MS

[groovy.ambuj]

i love Redmond guys! They are so self-confident. consider working on stupid IE and hoping it will be anywhere near firefox :-) only those people use IE who dont know how to switch.

This should then mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that M$ can separate IE completely from the underlying OS given:

"and the solution we settled on was to essentially push a large part of what you see in IE6 into a tab"

and:

"Another example of what makes this challenging is that IE and Explorer windows share the same code for the frame and chrome (toolbars, menus, etc.),"

So now more cribbing from M$ that they can't produce a version of Windoze without IE... now that'll be good because then no-one will use the stupid stinking pile of dung if they have to download it and the browser market will then be an open playing field...

typical

[Goatie]

It's just a pity the tabbed browser idea wasn't patented.

Re:typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course MS will patent tabbed browsing ;-)

Re:typical

[timmyf2371]

I disagree. Had tabbed browsing been patented I would need to use Opera if I wanted to use tabbed browsing - something I hope I am never forced to do.

Re:typical

[tepples]

A Windows-style taskbar within an MDI window would have been prior art to the tabbed browser. Or do you wish that Microsoft had patented the taskbar or that whoever had invented MDI had patented it?

wow! Tabs!

[gnarlin]

Microsoft sure knows how to inovate. If it weren't for them I would have never heard of this "tab" thingie. How many years is it since tabbed browsing for first intruduced? (I can't be bothered to find out right now). Wasn't there an article recently were free software maker about not being inovative? Let us play a game of 'spot the irony' shall we?

How about one window manager that works right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tabs are a solution to just one problem: your window manager sucks so badly that each app has to add its own level of subwindow (usually crippled nonresizeable MDI). Unlike the Mozilla project, Microsoft is actually in a position to fix the problem properly. You want to stack a bunch of windows in one container? Fine. They all have to be created by the same app? That's pointlessly lame. You can open new background tabs but not new background windows? WTF?

Who Gives A Shit?

[Master of Transhuman]

IE is so OVER it isn't funny.

They could put Andrea Corr as the skin and I couldn't care less.

Never thought about it

[teslatug]

It never even crossed my mind that tabs could be controlled by web sites. Can you imagine the hell IE would be if sites controlled when to open and close tabs like they currently can with windows?

Just maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

he was bitching at Microsoft, the company who makes the web browser, not the one who made the OS.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

10 to 1

[Snaller]

It will be a crappy implementation which favors the advertizers and not the end user.

(And if they could fix their damn stylesheet bugs: When you select 'ignore font sizes' it is supposed to ignore line height as well!)

Re:10 to 1

[hacker]

"When you select 'ignore font sizes' it is supposed to ignore line height as well!)"

Actually... no it isn't, and that's intentional.

If you have the following:

font: oblique bolder 1.1em Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 10em;

...and I remove the font height from that line, should line-height be ignored also? No. That would just be plain silly and break thousands of cleanly structured CSS layouts.

Re:10 to 1

[Snaller]

"When you select 'ignore font sizes' it is supposed to ignore line height as well!)"
Actually... no it isn't, and that's intentional.


Well Microsoft are idiots, so I'm not surprised if its intentional - but YES IT SHOULD. And here is why:

I come to a page where they specify a font should have an 8 point size and a 9 point line height. The result: I can't read the damn letters because they are so small - the whole idea of HTML being scalable out the window.
So I specify that MSIE should ignore font size on a page, and now I have:

A font size that is 25 points, and a 9 point line height! Imagine how that looks tons upon tons of letters on top of each other! STILL making the page unreadbale.

That would just be plain silly

That's just plain silly because you are one of the idiots who don't give a damn when you are discriminating against people with bad eyesight.

and break thousands of cleanly structured CSS layouts

There are now "cleanly" structered layouts on the web, only selvcentered arrogant assholes who don't give a shit that they are discriminating against tons of visually imparied people.
CSS is one of the biggest problems ever to happen to the web (and I don't give a damn about your possible opnion that its oh so great - I don't think something which makes everything harder to read is anything wonderful)

Re:10 to 1

[hacker]

"A font size that is 25 points, and a 9 point line height! Imagine how that looks tons upon tons of letters on top of each other! STILL making the page unreadbale."

This is why "ignoring font size" (whatever that means), should also include the ability (like Mozilla does; not sure if Firefox can do this though), to specify a minimum font size for all pages (which basically "ignores" all font sizes smaller than that).

"That's just plain silly because you are one of the idiots who don't give a damn when you are discriminating against people with bad eyesight."

Ah, baseless accusations without any research, I should have recognized this troll at the first post.

Our sites go through a QA test of no less than 13 browsers on 4 platforms before they are released to the public. This includes disabling text, colors, styles and images, as well as testing it on a text-to-speech device, PDA, wap and cell browser. Our sites are XHTML (true xhtml, not that xhtml-sent-as-text/html mess) and meet or exceed Section 508 and WAI-AAA guidelines.

Why do you think I used em in my font declaration, and not px or pt ? Specifically so you could resize the fonts to your liking, without breaking line-height. We don't develop in a vacuum, even if think we do.

So I think you need to go back and do some research before you start spewing your opinion about the matter about proper web design and site quality.

We care more about poorly-sighted individuals and those without sight altogether, as well as the colorblind... than almost everyone else we've been compared to.

Re:10 to 1

[Snaller]

This is why "ignoring font size" (whatever that means),

New to the internet are you? Internet Explorer has, in it Internet Options/Acessibility :

"Ignore font sizes specified on Web pages"

And it does - except when people use stylesheets to specify an absolute size - perhaps the programmers thought that they webmonsters knew what they were doing. Sorry, ment to write webmasters.

Ah, baseless accusations without any research, I should have recognized this troll at the first post.

You come across as some unthinking person who only cares about some lofty design goals and care little about anything else - that you add "troll" here just shows that as well. Anybody dare not agree with you, must be a troll!

And how the fuck could I "research" a random stranger - and more to the point why should i waste time on that - will it improve the multitude of sites out there? No it won't. Better try and forget it (until I'm reminded of it again)

Our sites go through a QA test of ...

Yeah yeah, bla bla - everybody are saints - show me your site and I'll tell you if you are the exception (and if your only site is http://code.plkr.org/ then yes, that is readable - but 15 tests for that?)

Why do you think I used em in my font declaration, and not px or pt ?

Because you like being in the minority? I'd bet 99% of sites don't.

We care more about poorly-sighted individuals and those without sight altogether, as well as the colorblind... than almost everyone else we've been compared to.


Good for you (and us), but almost nobody does in any form (not just web - how many games allow you do increase font size on the interface?).

Re:10 to 1

[hacker]

"Ignore font sizes specified on Web pages"

And it does - except when people use stylesheets to specify an absolute size

So in other words, it doesn't. Ok, well I guess you win.

We'll keep making accessible, valid, useful designs that degrade for those without sight, poor sight, or other impairments... and you keep bitching about how we're not fitting your mold of the "other 99%".

We'd rather be in the 1% that gets it right, than the 99% that doesn't.

Re:10 to 1

[Snaller]

"Ignore font sizes specified on Web pages"
And it does - except when people use stylesheets to specify an absolute size

So in other words, it doesn't. Ok, well I guess you win.


I win? So you agree that MSIE is badly designed and should be changed. I am gratified to hear that.
We'll keep making accessible, valid, useful designs that degrade for those without sight, poor sight, or other impairments...

You have still not said who "we" are.

and you keep bitching about how we're not fitting your mold of the "other 99%".


I complain about discrimination and you call it bitching - how superficial of you.

I am the one who complained about a bad design thing that should be changed, you are the one who joined and said it shouldn't because 1% get it right. For once let democracy rule.

no more box model whining!

[Anonymous Coward]

correct implementation of box model

They fixed this in 2001 .

So congratulations, you are asking them to fix something they fixed four years ago. No wonder they don't listen to people asking for CSS improvements if this is the quality of the feedback they are getting.

Mod Parent AC Post Insightful (nt)

[ceejayoz]

(en tea)

Non-resizable windows

[CmdrPorno]

windows that have been customized, such as hiding a toolbar or making the window non-resizable, will default to opening in their own standalone frame,

Why not just ignore the command to make a window non-resizable or hide a toolbar, or at least include an option to do so? This is a really annoying feature added by web developers.

To confirm you're not a script, please type the text shown in this image:

This is a really annoying feature added by Slashdot.

modified frames as new windows, standard as tabs

[alonsoac]

Currently, windows that have been customized, such as hiding a toolbar or making the window non-resizable, will default to opening in their own standalone frame, whereas ordinary pop-up windows will open in a new foreground tab.

is there any way to do this in Firefox? I have it configured so that popups will open as tabs but it somtimes messes up the entire window, sometimes it should be smarter and open a new window.

Drinking game

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose a pool with a $1 contribution from players. The person that can guess the first comment on the IE blog that contains word Firefox wins the whole thing.

innovation

[plutonium83]

Tabs? Well you don't say....

You might want to clean your pipe out...

[YU Nicks NE Way]

IE's behavior is fully standards compliant. From the article you referenced:

Media types summary for serving XHTML documents

Media type
HTML4
XHTML1.0 (HTML compatible)
XHTML1.0 (other)
XHTML Basic / 1.1
XHTML+MathML

text/html
SHOULD
MAY
SHOULD NOT
SHOULD NOT
SHOULD NOT

Re:You might want to clean your pipe out...

[Black.Shuck]

For the future, you might want to read the article before you cite it, because absolutely nowhere does it specify the degree of IE's support for HTML or XML. You also claim that IE is "fully standards compliant" -- which anyone who has wrestled with CSS2 (a 6 year old standard) will know is plain false.

It is well documented that IE6 does not support XHTML served with the application/xhtml+xml mime-type. You can start here, and Google can help you with the rest.

Re:You might want to clean your pipe out...

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Ummm...I was talking about xhtml+xml, and there the relevant document is not some third party jerk's article, but the W3C RFC. Guess where I got that text? Yup...the w3c.

It is well documented that IE6 doesn't support xhtml+xml. It's even better documented that it does not need to do so.

Re:You might want to clean your pipe out...

[Black.Shuck]

From your own post:

Media type
HTML4
XHTML1.0 (HTML compatible)
XHTML1.0 (other)
XHTML Basic / 1.1
XHTML+MathML

text/html
SHOULD
MAY
SHOULD NOT
SHOULD NOT
SHOULD NOT

XHTML 1.1 is the important one. XHTML 1.1 should not be served as text/plain, yet IE will not recognise it if served as xhtml+xml. That's non-compliance. The only XHTML format that can be served as text/plain is 1.0, which is little more than the HTML 4 specification with XML-tag closing rules.

Re:You might want to clean your pipe out...

[YU Nicks NE Way]

"SHOULD NOT" means jsut that "should not"...ie. we would rather you didn't, but you may. It's usually better translated into "although we couldn't find a compelling reason that this was wrong, we don't like it." What you're looking for is "MUST NOT", which means "if you do this, you are in violation of the RFC."

jpeg2000.jp2

[64nDh1]

- support for png alpha transparency

I'd sign a petition for out of the box support for jpeg2000 image formats. This would do so much for a format that performs above itself in terms of small file sizes and full features, yet the hassle for users means the format is going to stay relatively obscure.

Instead of requiring extensions, or getting special programs to view them (I know I got ToyViewer for Panther, but now Preview can open them - I don't know if it did before Tiger) why couldn't IE7 do something reallly great for the dialup users who could have 300 KiB images reduced to 70 KiB on a typical webpage, even if the browser will still lose ground to Firefox.

To give IE7 an advantage, they could try engineer a new VHS/Betamax conflict of interest. See if there's a way to make pornographic images bigger and clearer, but smaller in filesize so the sites are a little faster, but by using jpg2000 you either need IE7, or you need to extend all your other browsers. (I'm unsure if Opera supports it out of the box either, but there are extensions for every browser now... well, except Lynx I guess).

Re:jpeg2000.jp2

[Trejkaz]

Of course, any open source browsers without support for the format would be quickly updated so that the users wouldn't need to extend it themselves.

Re:jpeg2000.jp2

[64nDh1]

Yes but my point is: if there is support for the format in the most popularly used web browser, then there follows that there is an increased likelihood of more instances of the format being used.

Epiphany, Galeon and Konqueror are not going to change this if they support jpeg2000 fully*, although it'd certainly be welcome.

If IE7 got behind a format like that it's possible jpeg2000 would have the prominence it merits; it would be a realistic alternative, smaller in filesize but equal in function, to jpeg.

*I have no idea if they do support it, maybe they do.

Only at Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

would the addition of tabbed bowsing require the blogging of a member of the dev team to add to the hype(?)

And what is worse is that it takes more than ONE paragraph!

C'mon people... they are just TABS!

At least one of those...

[SanityInAnarchy]

ctrl-click = open link in new tab
middle-click = open link in new tab

Ah, the wonders of multiple keybindings to the same feature. These are default settings, btw. Useless on Linux, with its middle-button emulation (why doesn't anyone else do that?), but quite useful on Windows boxen with no middle mouse button.

The others, you should try for yourself, but I bet the sane ones have been done. Of course, middle-click being the same as left-click is NOT sane, because Firefox has middle-click do something unique on all platforms, and I wouldn't want to have to re-learn that just because I borrow someone's Mac for a second. You're supposed to re-learn stuff with new software, not platforms...

The sad thing is

[SQLz]

Microsoft will patent some small thing about tabbed browsing that 100 Firefox pluings will have done for years.

/IE7/ alpha: JavaScript library to correct CSS+PNG

[markjl]

This is not production quality yet, but I came across this project today and it looks very intriguing. I like the potential to fix IE back to IE5 despite Micro$oft's lack of initiative in this area for the next release.

http://dean.edwards.name/ie7/

GOLLY GOSH!?!?!

[cood]

IE 7 HAS TAB's?!?!

Not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

I love Firefox for the tabs and the available tab browsing plugins - but I still use IE because one thing: it boots up much faster than Firefox.

links hand icon visual idea

[HeDa]

it would be nice that the hand icon when you move the mouse over a link changes with a symbol over or near the hand if the link is going to open in a new window or a new tab. So you know it visually before clicking.

should i patent the idea as microsoft patented the double click? LOL

Hector

Copyrights of collections?

[njyoder]

Does it bother anyone that this guy wrote what is essential just a list for configuration of open source software and placed a very restrictive non-open license on it?

I know that collections, under certain circumstances, can be copyrighted. This, however, is raw list of websites. That is not any more copyrightable than a simple list of urls.

Re:modified frames as new windows, standard as tab

[50m31sl4sh.]

Set these options in about:config:

browser.link.open_newwindow = 3
browser.link.open_newwindow.restriction = 2

Now Firefox will behave exactly the same as yet-to-be-released IE7.

I, for one...

[theTerribleRobbo]

... welcome our humourless Mac-using overlords.

Other News: Farmer Breeds Pigs Who Love Mud

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn, another stay-alive message about yesterday's browser tarting up for tomorrow...

Failed analogy

[Shadowlore]

Windows 2000 is (allegedly) an operating system. Internet Explorer is (allegedly) an *application* that runs on the (alleged) operating system.

MS claims they won't be releasing IE7 for W2K because the (alleged) OS allegedly can't support IE7 becuase it 9allegedly) is missing features needed for it.

However, other browsers (allegedly) run on Windows2K and are more secure than IE, and offer (allegedly) tabbed browsing.

Your analogy fails because the Car would be the OS, and the brakes would be the application. Even then I'd say it is the radio that would be the application.

And Windows 2K is still a current (alleged) OS. XP is old too. Linux is an OLD operating system (older than Windows2000 even!) yet new browsers run on it as well. Linux even gets new operating systems -- on older versions of Linux no less!